Allowed

Sasi Power Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Uco Bank

DRAT27 Jul 2022MISC APPEAL/362/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal set aside the Debts Recovery Tribunal order refusing to take on record the appellants written statement and counterclaim directed the DRT to admit the documents and decide the original application on merits subject to costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; DRT directed to take written statement and counterclaim on record and decide original application on merits.

Sasi Power Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. versus Uco Bank — Arbitration | DRAT (2022)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI

¶2

Misc. Appeal No.362/2019 Arising out of O.A.No.194/2015 (DRT-II, Delhi)

¶3

Sasi Power Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs UCO Bank

¶4

27.07.2022 Hon’ble Mr. Justice BrijeshSethi

¶5

Present: Ms. Purti Gupta, Ld. counsel for the appellants 3 to 5

¶6

Mr. I.S. Chauhan, Ld. counsel for respondent bank

¶7

This matter has been taken up through Video Conferencing.

¶8

I.A. No.1002/2019

¶9

This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

¶10

Heard. For the reasons given in the application, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the instant appeal is condoned.

¶11

Misc. Appeal No.362/2019

¶12

Vide this order I shall dispose of the present appeal filed by the appellants under Section 20 of the RDB Act. In this appeal, the appellants have challenged the order dated 10.04.2019 passed by the learned DRT-II, Delhi refusing to take on record appellants’ written statement-cum-counter-claim on the ground the same was not filed within the prescribed time.

¶13

The learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant company had filed some preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the O.A. before the learned DRT on 14.10.2015, which remained pending till 29.06.2016, and written statement along with counter-claim was filed only thereafter on 28.7.2016. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants were justified in filing the written statement belatedly because they were waiting for the outcome of the preliminary objection. Learned counsel further submits that the learned DRT while passing the impugned order ought to have applied Section 19(5) of the RDB Act prospectively and not retrospectively as has been done by it. The learned counsel for the appellants prays that the impugned order be set aside in the interest of justice as the delay was only for the reason the appellants had filed preliminary objections and were bonafide impression that the written statement can be filed after decision on the same.

¶14

-: 2 :-

¶15

Mr. I.S. Chauhan, the learned counsel for respondent bank, on the other hand, opposes the appeal and submits that the order passed by the learned DRT is in accordance with law, as the appellants had failed to file the written statement and counter-claim in the prescribed time limit of 45 days (30 days + 15 days extended time). It is further submitted that there is no justification for filing the written statement after waiting for the decision on the preliminary objections as the preliminary objections could have been taken in the written statement itself and in these circumstances the present appeal is liable to be dismissed with costs.

¶16

I have considered the rival submissions. Keeping in mind that the appellants were waiting for the decision on their preliminary objections filed before the DRT, which was decided on 29.06.2016 and written statement along with counter-claim was filed on 28.07.2016, and also in view of the fact that it is in the interest of justice that the O.A. should be decided on merits, the delay in filing the written statement and counter-claim is condoned subject to appellants’ paying cost of Rs.15,000/- to the learned counsel for the respondent bank.

¶17

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 10.04.2019 is set aside. The DRT is directed take on record the written statement and counterclaim filed by the appellants on 28.07.2016 on record and decide the O.A. on merits in accordance with law. Parties shall appear before the DRT on the next date fixed for further proceedings.

¶18

(CHAIRPERSON)

¶19

-pk

Sasi Power Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Uco Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sasi Power Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Uco Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Corporation Bank (Now Union Bank of India)and Anr. versus M/S Dev Spinners Ltd. and Os

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus mr.Kishore Krishnarao Avarsekar and Ors.

Icici Bank Ltd. versus Retika Chadha and Ors.

Ashutosh Bajaj versus Union Bank of India

Zahid Hussain and Ors. versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Standard Watch Company versus the South Indian Bank Ltd.